In recent years, more and more computing applications are being implemented in distributed environments. A given distributed application may, for example, utilize numerous physical and/or virtualized servers spread among several data centers of a provider network, and may serve customers in many different geographical locations. In many cases, particularly in cloud-based computing environments, a given application may involve performing reads and writes at several different data stores, such as various instances of relational databases, non-relational databases, and the like. Some commonly used data store architectures may support the traditional ACID (atomicity, consistency, isolation and durability) properties associated with the relational data model for operations within a given data store, but may not support such properties for groups of operations involving multiple data stores. Other data store architectures may not natively support the ACID property even within groups of operations directed to a single data store instance.
Developers of applications that would benefit from support for transactions that cross data store boundaries are sometimes forced to implement their own state change management mechanisms. Such ad-hoc mechanisms are often hard to maintain, especially as the set of object types at the different data stores evolve based on changing application requirements, and as more features are added to the distributed applications themselves. In some cases, not all the data stores may provide support for the same sets of primitive types, or the same kinds of data manipulation operations, which may further complicate the task of managing complex transactions. Furthermore, given the network delays and various types of failures that may be encountered in typical distributed environments over time, some state change management techniques may not be robust enough to support the service levels required for mission-critical operations. Some storage system applications may also require more sophisticated state change management logic than can be implemented using traditional conflict detection techniques.
While embodiments are described herein by way of example for several embodiments and illustrative drawings, those skilled in the art will recognize that embodiments are not limited to the embodiments or drawings described. It should be understood, that the drawings and detailed description thereto are not intended to limit embodiments to the particular form disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, equivalents and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope as defined by the appended claims. The headings used herein are for organizational purposes only and are not meant to be used to limit the scope of the description or the claims. As used throughout this application, the word “may” is used in a permissive sense (i.e., meaning having the potential to), rather than the mandatory sense (i.e., meaning must). Similarly, the words “include,” “including,” and “includes” mean including, but not limited to. When used in the claims, the term “or” is used as an inclusive or and not as an exclusive or. For example, the phrase “at least one of x, y, or z” means any one of x, y, and z, as well as any combination thereof